Category: Apologetics

The Miserable State of the Clergy Seen in the Words of Tim Keller

“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”

-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal
02 September 2022

“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
 Henry II of England 
 Referring to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170 

1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said that he would rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.

2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by Christ-haters.  Has Rev. Keller ever considered that all power is derived from God, hence, godly men must pursue power  in order to honor God using power for righteous and godly ends — something that the Christ-hater can not do if he is consistent with his Christ hating worldview?

3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power. The right honorable Dr. Rev. Tim Keller posits a false dichotomy when he suggest that Christians have a binary choice wherein they can either take power or they can renew their churches but they can’t do both. Has Tim ever considered that one piece of evidence that Churches are being renewed is that they seek to exercise godly dominion over the state apparatus?

Jon Harris On Transgenderism … McAtee Corrects Harris

Jon Harris is one of the guys in a white hat. Typically his material is quite good. However, Jon remains a Baptist and here his Baptist hackles were apparently raised by something Carl Trueman wrote. Jon tries to correct Trueman but fails miserably as I intend to demonstrate.

Jon Harris opined,

“People who think they’re trans don’t think they’re trans because they chose to be trans. On the contrary, they believe it was not their choice. They think its who they actually are independent of any choice they made. They believe gender is a social construct. So they root their identity in social interactions. (i.e. how they “experience” the world). This is why it is so important for them to receive social affirmation. People must experience them as their trans identity if gender is a social construct. Carl Trueman hinging this all on “radical individualism” is causing Christians to make basic mistakes. Mistakes like thinking Baptist theology leads to transgenderism because it supposedly bases Christian identity on choice. Mistakes like mocking people who think they’re trans by saying “if I chose to be a cat would I be?” It’s not about choice. It’s about experience. We need to clearly say, “You do not experience life as a trans person.” Often I hear Christians giving up the entire argument by saying things like, “That may be your experience, but what is true?” What is true is that they experience the world according to the way they were designed. Let’s stop reinforcing delusion.”

1.) Of course people who are trans don’t admit that they chose to be trans and so don’t think they chose to be trans. Just as sodomites don’t admit that they chose to be sodomite and so don’t think they chose to be sodomite. Very few people admit to choosing a lifestyle that is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22). So that people who think they’re trans refuse to say they consciously chose to be trans doesn’t mean that they didn’t consciously choose to be trans. Of course they chose to be Trans. Unless one is going to buy into the idea that they were genetically coded to be trans there is no other choice except that for whatever reason based possibly on whatever trauma in their lives they chose to be Trans.

2.) Of course they wouldn’t say that it was their choice. Now, I grant that it is possible that they didn’t even fully realize that they were making a choice when they made the choice and I grant that something horrific may well have entered into their life that moved them to make that choice, but for whatever reason, consciously made or silently acquiesced to, at some point it was decided that being trans was preferable to living in harmony with the way God made them.

3.) Of course they think being trans is who they actually are independent of any choice they made. What else would they say? If they admit that they made a choice then the whole “this is just the way I am” argument goes right out the door. That “this is just the way I am argument” is key because without it their perversion can’t gain traction. Without that argument then the abnormality of it all has to be admitted.

4.) Jon offers that Trans people root their identity in the way they experience the world suggesting that this “way they experience the world” is different from making a choice to be Trans. However, Jon, at this point has given us a false dichotomy when he wants to make a significant distinction Trans people being the way they are because they chose to be that way and Trans people being the way they are because that is the way they experience the world. At this point we have to ask … “Did not the Trans person choose to experience the world in the way in which they experience the world?” Jon’s false dichotomy gives his argument no traction.

5.) I have my issues with Carl Trueman but in this case Trueman is correct when he observes that all of this grows out of a radical atomistic individualism that has swamped the West. On this score Trueman has not made any mistakes.

6.) Whether Harris likes it or not Baptist Baptism “theology” and transgenderism “ideology” do indeed have a point of contact and that point of contact is the denial that God does designate a person’s identity. Baptists deny God designating a baby’s identity as “covenant member” requiring the individual to choose for themselves and Tranny’s deny God designating a person’s gender as male or female, allowing the individual to decide for themselves. For both the Baptist and Transgender identity at a pivotal point is a social construct. For Baptist being in the covenant or not in the covenant is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual. As such they will not give Baptism to a child until that child determines their own social construct by choosing Jesus. For the Tranny being male or female is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual, and there are parents that are so buying into this that they are refusing to tell their child what gender they are so that the child can choose the social construct themselves.

Maybe we should refer to such parents as “Gender Baptists?”

Naturally enough, Jon doesn’t like this linkage because it hits too close to his Baptist home.

7.) I must agree with Jon about not using the “If I think I’m a cat does that make me a cat” argument with the Trans person because it is clearly the case that we are at a point that their replying with “yes” is not going to make very many people blink.

8.) And I agree that we must quit reinforcing delusion. However, Jon’s apologetic that we must tell the Trans person that they have to stop experiencing the world as Trans requires them to make a choice to do so, and at that point we see, once again, that Jon is involved in a false dichotomy.

But he has to reach for this false dichotomy because otherwise he may have to give up his Baptist radical atomistic individualism.

The War Heats Up … McAtee Corrects Clark — Part III

RSC writes on the R2K (Thomistic) theory of Nature & Grace;

The distinction between nature and grace is a Christian basic. It is, however, one of the many distinctions that we seem to have lost during the theological chaos of the twentieth century. Christians have distinguished between nature and grace since the beginning of the post-apostolic age and the Apostle Paul assumes it through the book of Romans as a basic, evident truth. There are some things we know by nature, e.g., that God is (Rom 1:19–20) and his moral, natural law (Rom 2:12–15).

Bret responds,

I have written so much on Natural Law theory on Iron Ink that my finger tip pads are worn out on the subject. Briefly let it be said here again,

1.) Natural law was popular among the pagan Stoics and other philosophers.
2.) They in turn picked it up from Aristotle. Aristotle was a pagan.
3.) Natural law is an especially peculiarly Roman Catholic method of reasoning
4.) Thomas Aquinas refined Natural Law providing a unbiblical synthesis between Natural Law and Gods Law.
5.) Natural Law has come in hot and heavy in R2K as a result of the Jesuit trained Dr. David Van Drunen being the R2K guru.

A good book that demolishes R2K’s love affair with Natural Law is Dr. Robert A. Morey’s, “The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise?”

Below is just one piece on Iron Ink that labors to demonstrate the theory of Natural Law the way R2K develops it. Plugging “Natural Law” into the Iron Ink search mechanism will provide many more entries on Natural law.

Observations On Natural Law Theory

RSC writes more on Nature and Grace;

From nature, we learn the arts (e.g., grammar), arithmetic, and science. We learn the doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, salvation, and the church from grace (i.e., Holy Scripture). When we fail to acknowledge this basic distinction, confusion follows.

Bret responds,

R2Kt Virus, Natural Law, And Attacks On Biblical Christianity — Part I

R2Kt Virus, Natural Law, And Attacks On Biblical Christianity — Part II

Let it be said here that the Three Forms of Unity do not allow someone who subscribes to them to teach Natural Law the way that R2K teaches Natural Law. I am not dismissing the reality of Natural Law. I am dismissing Natural Law the way that R2K advocates for Natural Law.

RSC writes,

One of the reasons the church taught this distinction was to combat the Pelagian heresy. Pelagius was a British monk who appears on the historical radar, in Rome, in the AD 380s. He was worried about the state of Christian morality. He was offended by Augustine’s emphasis on divine grace. In reaction, he denied that Paul taught a federal theology (wherein Adam and Christ are the heads of humanity). He held that we are not born sinners, but we become sinners when we sin. When we sin we imitate Adam. Pelagius denied the necessity of grace and he taught the possibility of perfection before death. Perhaps his most fundamental error was confusing nature and grace. Arminius and the Remonstrants did the same. Thus, the Reformed were traditionally quite clear about this distinction.

Bret responds,

The implication that only Thomists/Natural Law types get the above paragraph is so ridiculous that it is not worthy of a response. Is Clark saying that all presuppositionalists have been latent Remonstrants?

I’m fine with making a distinction between nature and grace. I am not find divorcing nature from grace so that we are forced to live the “hyphenated-life” (Dualistic) such as some in the R2K school have advocated for repeatedly.

RSC writes,

The Kinists seek to leverage grace with nature. They claim that people naturally congregate in ethnic/racial people groups, and they seek to use their analysis of nature to leverage grace. This is flatly contrary to the plain teaching of God’s Word.

Bret responds,

The Kinists teach that grace restores/renews nature, just like the Reformed have taught through the centuries. As such, since race/ethnicity is a part of nature Kinists understand that when men are visited with grace, that grace does not destroy their nature so that upon redemption they are cleansed of their race/ethnicity just as they are not cleansed of their biological gender. Being rooted and grounded in Christ does not mean I cease being WASP.

Unlike Scott, I actually read and learned from my Calvin;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin
Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

When Calvin impugns the “flighty and scatterbrained dreamers” he is impugning the Anabaptists. I think (as I suggested in my book) that R2K is latent Anabaptist.

Matthew Henry also agrees with me;

“Note, It is the will of God that mutual love and affection, converse and communion, should be kept up among relations. Those that are of kin to each other should, as much as they can, be acquainted with each other; and the bonds of nature should be improved for the strengthening of the bonds of Christian communion.”

Matthew Henry Commentary
Numbers Chapter 2:1-2

Charles Hodge agrees with me too;

“The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.”

Charles Hodge
Commentary Romans 9

RSC writes;

Under the Mosaic law, there was a clear distinction between Jew and Gentile. The latter were to be regarded as ritually unclean. For Christians, however, that “dividing wall” (Eph 2:14) has been broken down by the death of Christ. Paul writes:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph 2:11–16; ESV).

According to Paul, the Gentiles (that’s everyone but the Jews), who have trusted Christ are no longer separated from Jews who have trusted Christ. The old ethnic and religious barriers that had separated them are done away with in the body of Christ. This is true in two senses. The church of the body of Christ no longer observes such distinctions but second and more profoundly, Christ literally broke down those barriers when his body was, as he said at the institution of the Holy Supper, “broken for” us. He abolished the ceremonial laws that separated Christian Jews and Gentiles. The old enmity is gone—it must be. Our enmity with God is abolished in and by the crucified body of Christ.

Bret responds,

Sigh… that a teacher of Israel could read Ephesians 2 through a Cultural-Marxist grid like Red Scott does is just breath-taking. When I read stuff like this I’m reminded of the old Bobby Goldsboro song, “Watching Scotty Grow;”

There he sits with a pen and a yellow pad,
What a confusing lad, that’s our boy
BRLFQ spells mom and dad,
Well that ain’t too bad, ’cause that’s our boy

Let me help you out Scotty on Ephesians 2;

The dividing wall in Ephesians 2 is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Christ tears down the “dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph 2:14b-15a). When Christ died, God no longer imposed on Jews the rules that once separated them from Gentiles. The purpose of those aspects of the law has now been fulfilled. The laws that specifically divided Jew and Gentile are now done away with. It is not just the ceremonial laws that are now gone, but the old covenant to which they were intricately attached has been replaced by the new covenant. Under the new covenant God no longer imposes these ceremonial expectations on his children. This arrangement grants Gentiles wide open access to enter the kingdom of God. Gentiles do not need to become cultural Jews in order to be Christians.

Further, Paul is not talking about generic ethnic divides but specifically the aspects of the law-covenant that divided Jew from Gentiles. Therefore, someone cannot impose ethnic distinctions onto Paul’s words. The apostle has something uniquely covenantal in mind.

Second, the dividing wall was originally the will of God. To take the word “hostility” in and apply it to racism is dangerous. The dividing wall to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and the Mosaic Law was God’s idea. He made the wall; then he removed it in Christ. The division was God’s will, not the by-product of the human sin today called “racism.” “Racism,” if and when someone can define it, on the other hand, is the result of human sin and never is/was the result of what God commands or commanded. By applying Ephesians 2:14 to ethnic strife today R2K effectively turn God into a “racist.”

Third, did Christ remove by his death the various differences between peoples/cultures today? Not at all. Before Christ’s death, one people/culture may prefer beer. Another people/culture may prefer wine. After the death of Christ the first people/culture still likes beer and the second people/culture still likes wine. The death of Christ was not intended to move the needle on these types of ethno-cultural differences (except for the aspects of man’s ethno-culture that are sinful). Nor did it overturn other aspects of human relations grounded in creation and nature.

Charles Hodge likewise affirmed this truth;

“It cannot be denied that there is a great difference in men in this respect. Some are morose, irritable, and unsocial in their dispositions, others are directly the reverse … They may be born with these distinctive traits of character, and such traits beyond doubt are in numerous cases innate and often hereditary … It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character; we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, without asking ourselves any questions as to the origin of these distinguishing characteristics. And if we do raise that question, although we are forced to answer it by admitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind …

The Irish people have always been remarkable for their fidelity; the English for honesty; the Germans for truthfulness. These national traits, as revealed in individuals, are not the effect of self-discipline. They are innate, hereditary dispositions, as obviously as the physical, mental, or emotional peculiarities by which one people is distinguished from another. And yet by the common judgment of men this fact in no degree detracts from the moral character of these dispositions.”

(Charles Hodge, Syst.Theo.Vol.2, pp.112-113)

” [The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)

More fundamentally in Ephesians 2, the church and nation are two different entities governed by Christ in different ways–with different laws and rules of citizenship.

R. Scott Clark and R2K are unwise people with little discernment. The historic Reformed Church while traditionally teaching forms of 2K have never taught R2K. This R2K theology is a completely innovative “Reformed” “Theology” coming to us from the chaos of the second half of the 2oth century.

Be careful who you listen to. Only simpletons and knaves listen to other simpletons and knaves.

Chit Chatting with the Clergy regarding Nashville and Returning Fire

“The baseline question is: do you care more about yourself and your rights or do you care more about loving others and contributing to the good and healing of all. This world has consistently and clearly answered that question over and over again. But the Kingdom has a very different answer.”

Jay Simmons
PCA Pastor
All Souls Church — St. Louis Mo.

Let’s apply this to the Nashville event.

Because of my caring about loving others I know that insisting on second amendment rights may well have meant that someone was firing back at the perp who did not consider God’s sovereign right to His people’s lives. Because of the embrace of my 2nd amendment rights I may well be in the position to love others by firing back at lunatics.

So, yeah … I do care more about myself and my God given rights and in doing so I could, if this situation arose in a setting I was in, show my love to others by contributing to their good and healing by returning fire on a perp with deadly intent.

So we see that the Kingdom most assuredly does NOT have a different answer.

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor — Charlotte Christ the King Reformed Church

p.s. — Do you ever wake up with the cold sweats worried that God is going to hold you accountable for what comes out of your mouth as His servant?

At this point one Ty Burk steps in to defend Rev. Simmons. That exchange is below;

TB wrote,

So, you are attempting to use the Nashville mass shooting, that wasn’t stopped by an armed citizen, as an argument for armed citizens because they *might* prevent mass shootings? Continuing that logic, more firearms would result in fewer mass shootings/firearm fatalities. More armed citizens = less firearm fatalities is the argument.

Bret responds,

1.) Well, it is dang certain the case that an armed citizen will have more success at preventing a mass shooting then an unarmed citizen will have at preventing a mass shooting. This isn’t rocket science chum.

2.) I know that more armed citizens who are informed concerning weapons and drilled on the use of weapons would lead to fewer fatalities.

3.) One thing that is certain sure is that revoking or diminishing the 2nd amendment will lead to more shootings and more deaths. I mean, you don’t really think that someone who has no problem violating the law in murdering someone will pause for a skinny second and be inhibited by a law that says they can’t have firearms? If you criminalize owning guns only criminals will own guns.

4.) Not only do more armed citizens = less firearm fatalities but more armed citizens = the FEDS thinking twice before they decide to tyrannize the citizenry. Of course, you perfectly understand that is the whole reason for the 2nd amendment right? You realize that the reason our Founders gave us a 2nd amendment was because they had experienced government tyranny and knew the only way to forestall government tyranny was to make sure the citizenry was armed to the teeth, right?

TB writes,

However, that position is not supported by any data or experience.

Bret responds,

Horse Hockey!

Experience as well as common sense tells us that people who have weapons who can fire back at people who are firing at them will always have more of a fighting chance to survive.

TB writes,

The number of mass shootings prevented by armed citizens remains dismally low. Additionally, as the number of firearms/their accessibility increase, so does firearm fatalities. That’s not an opinion. It’s substantiated fact.

Bret responds,

I don’t believe you and I am convinced that you are at this moment practicing the art of gaslighting.
Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day.

Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.

60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.

Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.

TB now regretting getting involved with me writes,

Please expound on the position that firearm ownership is a God given right.

Bret responds,

“All careful studies and lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting, by just defense, against violence, protecting and defending the innocent.” (Westminster Larger Catechism Q135).

The great Puritan commentator on the Bible, Thomas Ridgeley (1667-1734), in his commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism quotes the Catechism itself as I have above and then in his commentary on Sixth Commandment duties, Ridgeley says,

“We should use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others [because]…. man is the subject of the divine image…. We are also to defend those who are in imminent danger of death…. Moreover, in some instances, a person may kill another in his own defence, without being guilty of the breach of this commandment….”

Ridgeley goes on to comment that if we cannot disarm an enemy threatening our life, or flee from him, “we do not incur the least guilt, or break this commandment, if we take away his life to preserve our own; especially if we were not first in the quarrel, nor gave occasion to it by any injurious or unlawful practices.”

Also we note the Heidleberg catechism

105. Q. — What does God require in the sixth commandment?

A.

… Moreover, I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself. 3

3. Mt 4:7; 26:52; Rom 13:11-14

.

What else can we call a refusal to defend one’s self and one’s people except a harming or a recklessly endangering of one’s self? This is something that the Heidelberg forswears.

You see the Heidelberg Catechism insists that the keeping of the Sixth commandment means that I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself. It doesn’t take much to argue that we are increasingly living in times when not carrying a weapon on us for self-defense and the protection of the judicially innocent could easily be seen as that which constitutes a reckless endangering of ourselves and others.

Of course, to appeal again to the Scriptures as our primary source of authority we look at Proverbs,

“Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked.”

Proverbs 25:26

Mind if I just call you “OIe Muddy,” Ty?

TB writes,

Where are we, as Christians, promised safety and security? Where are Christian instructed to take up arms to secure safety and security? Indeed, where are Christian instructed to use lethal force for any means?

Bret responds,

Proverbs 25:26

Pulpit Commentary, on Proverbs 25 verse 26. – … a righteous man giving way to the wicked.
“A good man neglecting to assert himself and to hold his own in the face of sinners, is as useless to society and as harmful to the good cause as a spring that has been defiled by mud stirred up or extraneous matter introduced is unserviceable for drinking and prejudicial to those who use it.”

Illustration — Cow Pond Farm

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the Faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

1 Timothy 5:8

Fathers and husbands are required by Almighty God to provide for their families. This includes not only providing food, housing, clothing, education, medical care, love, discipleship and spiritual guidance, but also protection. Of what worth is all the other provision if one does not provide protection as well? Anyone who fails to provide the necessary protection for their family has denied the Faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Those using Anabaptist Pacifist reasoning will say things like, “We should be those who trust God,” as if one cannot carry a weapon and trust God at the same time. We are to trust God for our daily provision. Is the implication of that, that we should not earn a living since God will provide? We are to trust God to keep us safe at the workplace. Does this mean if I am working with Jets, as I used to, I quit wearing headphones because God is going to keep me safe?

Let us close by noting that God would have us protect man. Not because man in and of himself, apart from God has any inherent value but because man can never be considered apart from God and so is the image of God. Any assault on man finds the root crime being an assault on God. An assault on the King’s man is an assault on the King and when we are protecting the image of God via self-defense against those attacking the King’s men we are protecting the King. If we allow God’s judicially innocent Image bearers to be assaulted and threatened without response, it is not merely that we are not protecting men, it is a case that we are communicating that God Himself is not worthy of being defended. This Image of God is that which explains why men should be defended.

God puts such value on His Image bearers that He sent forth the God-man to reconcile God to His elect image bearers. Christ died for the sins of His people so that they, as Image bearers of God, would be rescued. If God, at cost to Himself would set forth His own son as the propitiation of the Image Bearers sin how much more should we seek to protect and defend men as Image bearers?

TB writes,

Your imagined scenario of showing your love for others by returning fire recalls the assault of Malchus by Simon Peter in the Gospels. The chief priest and elders come with Judas and a crowd to seize Jesus. Malchus grabs Jesus and, in an attempt to defend Jesus, Peter draws a sword and cuts off Malchus’ ear. Peter is admonished by Jesus to put his sword back in its place. And, in Luke’s account, even heals Malchus by reattaching his ear.

Bret responds,

When the situation is one where I am trying to stop Jesus from going to the cross I’ll keep the above in mind. However, when I am in other situations where I am trying to protect the life of the judicially innocent I’ll keep the Scripture, catechisms, and confessions in mind as limned out above.

TB writes,

I’m of the opinion that Christ, the foundation of our religion who never promised safety/protection, nor instructed others to use lethal force to secure safety/protection, who sent his Disciples out (unarmed) to suffer deaths as martyrs (not one raising so much as a sword to defend themselves), and who never raised a hand in self defense against false accusations and unjust death on the cross, would have a similar rebuke for position expressed in your comment.

Bret responds,

Frankly, I don’t care what your opinion is Ty. Clearly, your faith is informed by lunatic Anabaptist categories. We Reformed manly men never went in for that kind of cowardly retreatism. Have fun with your effeminate religion. Don’t worry though… if you’re someplace where someone is lighting up the place with bullets I’ll make sure and not protect you, out of love for you and Jesus.

Devon Stack Video on Why the CREC Needs to Repent

It is true that the below is propaganda but as it seems to be the case that the only way we communicate anymore is by propaganda I have no problem with this and am gladdened by Stack’s publication of this 30 minute video.

https://www DOT bitchute DOT com/video/4H4En52dylrU/?fbclid=IwAR3jtS5wwVyATgQI814vb967-C7MayIl1BUz0qrYsxls_6y2DSzjJLBTUs4

The Christian white man has to wake up. It may already be too late but he still needs to wake up from his suicidal altruism. As you will learn from the below video, it is the case that there is operative such a thing as an ongoing attempt to replace the Christian white man from the West as exchanged out for the repopulating of the West with non-Caucasians.

Christianity is NOT a death cult and right now that is what the Church in America has become. There is nothing pious, righteous, or holy, about standing by and watching the destruction of the remnants of the once Christian West with the people who God raised up to make it. And yet the Church in the West, at worst is aiding and abetting this project and at best is standing mute watching as it continues.

Whether they can comprehend it or not this is what guys like Doug Wilson, Toby Sumpter, Michael Foster, and the whole CREC movement is facilitating as seen in their opposition to Kinism coupled with their desire to rid the Church of white Kinists.